I'm comparing these lenses primarily for astrophotography having narrowed down my selection from a previous thread. The 16-35 would replace my current 17-40. The Zeiss 21mm 2.8 would be a compliment to the 17-40 (a lens I am happy with anyway)
There are still several things to weigh up between these lenses. Of greatest concern to me is vignetting. It would seem that the 16-35 at 20mm has significantly (almost 2 stops) less based on this comparison:
Does the significant sharpness advantage of the Zeiss (vs the 16-35) outweigh this shortcoming? Does anyone have any sample images with the Zeiss at f2.8 on a static tripod? I want to shoot the stars and landscape together....
Other considerations are the weight impact of the 2 set-ups (I hike a lot) and the effective massive cost discrepancy (since I can sell the 17-40 if I but the 16-35)
Nevertheless, if the Zeiss is going to be a significantly better astrophotography lens then that could be the way to go...
Thanks, yes just to clarify, I'm really just interested in the comparisons at f2.8. The comparison I posted was at f2.8 and full frame comparing 21mm to 20mm but perhaps this test was exaggerating somehow?
Even in those links the vignetting difference between the two is a whole stop, which isnt a small amount, particularly given that the 16-35s vignetting seems more confined to the corners....
Perhaps I'm worrying too much but I would be interested to hear peoples experiences.
Since you are interested in wide open performance, why not try a ZE 25/2 or 24Lmk2?
Of course all these lenses vignette a lot wide open. Nikon 24G/1.4 does not vignette as much as the Canon and the Zeiss 25/2 and 21/2.8.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I think the comparison you posted isn't full frame unless I'm mistaken, the 1ds Mk2 is a crop.
The 1ds MkII is a FF camera, but easily confused with a 1d mkII, which is a 1.3 crop.
plasticmotif wrote:
My experience is the Zeiss 21 is one of the finest lenses ever made.
If posed with a question of Zeiss 21 vs. ____________?
The Zeiss 21 will always be the one that I'll chose.
I'm hating to have to sell my copy.
I wish you lived in the UK, I'd gladly take it off your hands :P I dont suppose you have done any astro stuff with it have you?
wayne seltzer wrote:
Since you are interested in wide open performance, why not try a ZE 25/2 or 24Lmk2?
Of course all these lenses vignette a lot wide open. Nikon 24G/1.4 does not vignette as much as the Canon and the Zeiss 25/2 and 21/2.8.
I will look into the other Zeiss lens, thanks. I have ruled the 24mm out because the corners are pretty awful for stars wide open. At 2.8 it isnt quite as good as the Zeiss and I think I would prefer a slightly wider focal length
Alex Nail wrote:
Does the significant sharpness advantage of the Zeiss (vs the 16-35) outweigh this shortcoming? Does anyone have any sample images with the Zeiss at f2.8 on a static tripod? I want to shoot the stars and landscape together....
IMO, yes.
You are correct, Zeiss lenses are famous for vignetting at wide open. However, it's an easy fix with LR's lens correction profile. However, there is no correction that I know of that will convert blurry stars in the corners into pinpoints on the 16-35 MkII.
Alex, the 21 is stunning, day and night. There is no other word for it. And with the new generations of cameras with their high ISO capability, a lens that is razor sharp at f/2.8 is all it takes. With the 21 stars are not disturbingly elongated at 15-20s exposures (ISO3200 on 7D, with itīs very demanding small pixels). Of the Canon Līs I have tried 24L mk 1, 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L. Not one of them come close to the blurrless star images of the 21. At the wide end the 25/2.8 is close, but the 21 is better. The new 15/2.8 might just be one lens to dream about too.
I have both the ZE21 and the 16-35II. I don't take photos of the night sky very often but the few I have done I used the Zeiss. Even at f2.8 it is sharp into the corners. The best range of the zoom is 20-24mm IMO but even then the extreme corners don't get sharp until it is stopped down some. I'm sure it would work if you didn't stare into the corners.
Another lens I have that I think would work well, though not as wide, is the Zuiko 24 f2. I haven't used it for stars though.
I bet the new 15 f2.8 from what I have read would be very nice but expensive.
I'm in agreement with the info above - the 21 is very good at 2.8 - probably closer to excellent in comparison to the Canon - vignetting about the same, maybe just a slight bit more for the Zeiss. Other considerations would be the Canon 24II TS-E - excellent sharpness wide open though at 3.5. The Contax 17-35/2.8 "N" - weaker than the primes wide open, but good at 2/8 and tightens up nicely at 3.2.
Yeap, looking forward to see what the 15/2.8 can do with open astro/lunar shots and creative landscape - I'm about to sell two favorite lenses to find out.
I don't shoot astro, so my experience is limited to twilight and cityscapes. I'm keeping my 16-35L II and 24 TS-E II, and selling the Zeiss ZE 21/2.8. Too much overlap with the Canon lenses, and I prefer the 24L TS-E to the Zeiss -- more versatile for me and I like the IQ. My 16-35 isn't bad at all stopped down, but you wouldn' be interested in f/5.6 and smaller.
pm, are those 'stars' actually cunningly disguised D800E false color artifacts? I see some magenta ones and I am quite confident of being able to locate ones of a cyan nature, lol.
Nice photo, best places I know for starry starry nights outside the Louvre are Tibet and Australia (outside the big cities) - you need deserts, larger the better.
Thanks for the suggestions for the 15mm. I have no doubt that is the ideal, but at double the cost of the 21mm (Ģ3000 in the UK) there is absolutely no way I can justify it.
Back to the question at hand....The 2 sites that present vignetting information on the two lenses do show a 1 stop difference or more. If I take an astro shot at ISO3200 that is a big deal, as good as the 5DmkII is, pushing high ISO images doesnt tend to end well!
Thank you for the sample. Does anyone else have a sample to share? I must admit I am leaning towards buying it at the moment, but its just a lot of money!
i still dont know why you are not thinking about the nikon 14-24? every mm is equivalnt to a zeiss prime, and at the same cost, just slightly heavier. dont worry about the old adapter baloney, its not rocket science or areonautical engineering ;-)
as i mentioned and others did in your last post a far cheaper option is the samyang 24mm 1.4, or does the name put you off?
parsons wrote:
i still dont know why you are not thinking about the nikon 14-24? every mm is equivalnt to a zeiss prime, and at the same cost, just slightly heavier. dont worry about the old adapter baloney, its not rocket science or areonautical engineering ;-)
as i mentioned and others did in your last post a far cheaper option is the samyang 24mm 1.4, or does the name put you off?
s
Do I detect a patronising tone Simon?
The Nikon 14-24 is twice the weight, not as sharp at 2.8 in the edges or corners (I've checked lots of comparisons) and you can't use filters (without getting quite creative!) Fundamentally though I use a 17-40 and a 70-200 for landscapes. If I replaced the 17-40 with the 14-24 then the gap between 24-70mm becomes way too big. Carrying a 600g lens in addition to the 17-40 is something I would do, but if I had the 14-24 the 17-40 would stay at home. I've never really felt that that 17-40 was inadequate anyway, it'll just be nice to have something better at the focal length I use the most! So for me the Nikon 14-24 is off the table.
I've read reviews on the Samyang 24 1.4 and obviously its great value but unsurprisingly (given that it's 3 times the price) in the sharpness stakes it is significantly surpassed by the Zeiss lens. When shooting the milky way (as you obviously know) wider angles are better if possible, and that is another (minor) factor.
If I want a step improvement in image quality for astrophotography then really I need a lens that is sharp at f2.8 across the frame. The zeiss lens seems to be the only lens that meets that criteria. Outside of that I would be willing to trade slight softness for a 1 stop improvement, but all lenses that offer this capability seem really quite bad at f2. I would love to find a lens that is better than the Zeiss for astrophotography, but I just can't find it at the moment.
Although the vignetting on the Zeiss is bad it's pretty similar to my 17-40 at f4. Of course it is a whole stop faster and huge amount sharper.
So that's the logic that left me looking at a Ģ1500 prime lens not the name
